Original Article 183 Are the Czech or Slovak regions “closer to Europe”? Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective Martin Plešivčák* Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Department of Economic and Social Geography, Demography and Territorial Development, Slovakia * Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT Based on the 2003–2019 electoral data, this article evaluates the level of pro-Europeanness in Czechia and Slovakia at the regional and sub-regional levels during and after their EU accession period. The TOPSIS multi-criteria evaluation method and cluster analysis were used to quantify the pro-European levels and to create the subsequent categories of territorial units. The results show sup- port for the ideas of European integration primarily in large urban regions (Prague, Brno, Bratislava, Košice), territorial units with a higher concentration of ethnic minorities, larger scale agricultural activities (southwestern Slovakia), and a high degree of religiosity (northeastern Slovakia). The low level of pro-Europeanness was predominant in the less developed north-western Czechia and parts of Moravia. In Slovakia, the Eurosceptic regions were mostly located in the northwest, where the values of statism, egalitarianism and nationalism have a strong tradition. This approach can be used to identify areas of weak support for the EU project at a spatially disaggregated level in other EU countries. KEYWORDS Pro-Europeanness; TOPSIS method; EU referendum; European Parliament elections; subnational level; Czechia; Slovakia Received: 4 October 2019 Accepted: 16 July 2020 Published online: 30 September 2020 Plešivčák, M. (2020): Are the Czech or Slovak regions “closer to Europe”? Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective. AUC Geographica 55(2), 183–199 https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2020.13 © 2020 The Author. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 184 Martin Plešivčák 1. Introduction real assistance from European structural and invest- ment funds. Indeed, if we want to avoid disintegration Czechia, Slovakia and eight other mainly post-social- processes within the EU and the threat of its gradual ist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, joined decomposition, just in those regions which are char- the European Union on May 1, 2004. In the periods acterized by the highest degree of Euroscepticism, the before and after accession, the moods in the two EU’s contribution to the future should be the most vis- countries in relation to the European integration pro- - ject differed based on time, location, and the politi- - cal and socio-economic conditions. Public support ticismible. This at theis prevented regional and by the sub-regional knowledge levels. of “problem for the country’s accession to the EU, as well as the atic” regions and the reasons that can cause Euroscep referendum turnout itself differed for both countries, 2. Theoretical background can be said for the period after May 1, 2004, in the depending on their intraregional specifics. The same for Eurosceptic parties in the European Parliament politics, in the case of European elections, is the sec- (EP)case ofelections. the territorial specificities of turnout and votes ond-orderThe dominant national concept election of understanding theory (Reif and European Schmitt We have seen a gradual shift of Euroscepticism 1980). European Parliament elections were character- toward the centre of European politics since the ized as national elections taking place simultaneously in all the member states of the European Community. both enlargement and elections in 2004. For the new member1990s. Nevertheless, states, there it was gained high stronger public support influence for after the of major (general) national elections and are domi- European Union project; however, it began to decline natedThese byare the less same important parties elections that focus held more in theon national shadow after accession. In addition to contextual factors such interests than European issues or on the position of the national parties to the EU (Hix and Marsh 2011). rhetoric of several political actors could have con- Nevertheless, the results of the national and Europe- as the financial and migration crises, changes in the an elections are still different. Second-order elections right-wing political parties learned from the past and do not lead to national government formation and insteadtributed of to proclaiming the rise of radicalEuroscepticism. views (including The extreme xeno- are therefore of less interest to voters, the media and phobia, racism and anti-Semitism) they moved on to a somewhat milder and more tolerant populism and decision than if the national elections were organized thus Euroscepticism was addressed to a wider elec- political actors. This leads voters to make a different- ate votes on the basis of what they think about the values or Euroscepticism include citizens on the one country’son the same economic day (Hix situation, and Marsh the 2011). government’s The elector per- hand,torate and (Goodwin their political 2011). representatives,The bearers of pro-European political par- formance or the topics that move domestic politics at - et al. 2011). For this reason, the campaigning and tac- tifyties andthe degreespecific ofcandidates pro-Europeaness on the other. of the public in ticsthat ofmoment political (Carrubba parties in and second-order Timpone 2005; elections De Vries are CzechiaThe main and Slovakiaobjective at of thethis time contribution of accession is to to iden the motivated by national themes (Reif and Schmitt 1980; EU and afterwards at the hierarchically lower, region- Cabada 2010). Also, media coverage of these elections al and sub-regional (district) levels, to create a typ- is usually limited. Furthermore, immediately after the election and the end of the campaign, the European long-term pro-European orientation and to charac- Parliament returns to obscurity (Lodge 2010). In the terizeification the of groups partial formed territorial on theunits basis according of its indica to the- is emphasized the fact that one of the main aspects of decision making method regarding the value distance theanalysis second-order of the first elections European is that elections there is(1979), less at therestake oftors. given For territorial this reason, unit we to apply the most TOPSIS positive multi-criteria and most negative value within the set of units under study. We the national parliament or the government, and the also try to outline possible factors related to pro-Eu- electorate(Reif and Schmitt is not 1980).highly Themotivated election to does participate not involve in ropeanness at the regional and district levels, dis- the election or to vote differently than they would if - - tion theory predicts that elections to the European Pinkcussing 2012; with Voda findings 2015; of Kostelecký previous studies et al. 2016; on elector Przy- Parliamentnational elections follow werethree held.main The formulas: second a orderlower elec rate al behaviour (e.g. Krivý et al. 1996; Madleňák 2012; of participation (lower turnout), a more positive out- of the sub-national units of these countries, which is come for small and new parties, and a loss of support particularlybyla 2019). Thus, important the aim in relationis to map to the running “Europeanity” an effec- for government parties stemming from the location of general elections in the national election cycle (Reif promotionaltive, place-specific activities, campaign and in focusing the context on EU of relevance regional of the theory in the context of post-socialist countries (cohesion)and benefits, policy, the alsomeaningful due to the dissemination proper direction of its of hasand beenSchmitt addressed 1980; Hix by severaland Marsh authors, 2007). e.g. The Linek validity et al. Pro-Europeanness from a subnational perspective 185 Šaradín (2008), Havlík and Hoskovec (2009), (2007), Charlotdomestic 1986). and European Nevertheless, issues, their which importance was confirmed varies CabadaIn order (2010), to understand Klíma and theOutlý perception (2010), Kovář of the (2013), nature fromin the election first direct to election elections and in from 1979 place (Blumer to place. 1983; In ofKovář the Europeanand Kovář Parliament(2014). elections by the political general, however, the importance of European themes actors themselves (parties, politicians and voters), gains momentum over time, but this is in contrast to the connection of these elections with the concept of the declining voter participation in the European elec- Europeanization must be recognized. Europeaniza- - opment, food security, environment, foreign policy, and content of politics in such a way that the political immigration,tions. Traditional and economicissues, such and as industrial research policyand devel may andtion economicis defined dimensionsas a process ofof thechanging European the directionCommu- - ert Schuman Foundation 2004). Nevertheless, the cur- shape the content and scope of national policies (Lan- rentbe considered pan-European as “more themes European” of the (Budgegiven period, 2001; Robsuch drechnity influence 2002). It the is clear structure that European of national issues politics, have and an increasing effect on political debates at the national crisis, Brexit, migration, reviving debates on the con- level, but the response of national party systems is ceptas,